Those of us who choose to use firearms lawfully for recreation (target shooting, hunting, collecting, etc.), sympathize with the committee in its goal to curtail the misuse of firearms. We, too, do not want firearms to be in the hands of undesirable elements. Having attended several of the recent hearings, I was pleased when the Honorable Chairman Senator Dodd, early in the hearings asked the Director of the Alcohol and Tobacco Unit to look into the effect of S. 1592 on antique firearms and that he, the chairman, felt that changes were needed in the bill in that area. Since virtually all of our shoulder firearms are .54 .58, and .69 caliber, we were originally concerned by their apparent inclusion as "destructive devices." Now, however, substantially all of our initial objections will have been met by the amendments proposed by the executive branch as reported in mid-July, by the Washington Post. The wording of the definition of "antique firearm" appears to be well thought out and definitely appears to exclude from the bill, the muzzle-loading firearms used in our individual and company target matches. We also approve the amended definition of "destructive device" as proposed. Such items (bombs, grenades, etc.) are specifically prohibited by our "skirmish rules." We are concerned however, with section 3 (a) (C) which sets a $100 license fee for dealers in firearms (other than dealers in destructive devices and pawnbrokers). We feel that this would work an indirect hardship on all lawful gun owners and particularly on muzzle loaders and collectors. Most of the persons in these latter two categories obtain their prized historical firearms from bona fide dealers by mail order. Only a very few dealers can restrict their trade to antiques and yet operate profitably. An arbitrary fee of $100 regardless of the size of the dealer's operation would in our opinion severely restrain trade and restrict competition in the sale of lawful firearms. The present Federal controls and paperwork required by the law abiding is a burden, although the need for such is understood and accepted by all thinking lawful gun owners. There is no doubt that there is a mail-order problem. It is shameless that children and criminals can obtain firearms from lawful sources by simply ordering through the mail. The person who illegally orders a pistol by mail should, in our opinion, be tracked down and dealt with under existing Federal law. We are more than willing to contend with reasonable mail-order restrictions, in fact we go on record as requesting such. We strongly support the approach taken by Representative Casey, of Texas, for a mandatory prison sentence for those convicted of a crime of violence who uses or carries a firearm. Admittedly, there is a real crime problem. Further, there is no denying that firearms figure in some crimes. However, placing obstacles in the way of the lawful would-be gun owner has not solved this problem in Washington, D.C., or in New York City. In fact, the reverse is true, trafficking in guns has gone underground. Your attention is respectfully called to an article in the Washington Evening Star dated July 13, 1965, which brings out that there were 174 assault with a dangerous weapon arrests or complaints in May 1964. Forty-two of these involved a knife and nine cases involved a gun. "Of the 174 ADW arrests or complaints in May 1964, not one had resulted in a felony conviction in district court when the cases were checked later, although three cases still were pending there." Nine cases involved a gun, out of 174. This represents about 5 percent, perhaps an irreducible minimum, percentagewise. It is beyond the realm of this testimony to delve into statistics. The above is quoted to point out that attacking the crime problem seems to lie in a different direction. At the same time, there is no doubt whatsoever, but that Federal controls are needed to attack the firearms traffic problem. We wholeheartedly back your aims and laud your tireless efforts to solve these difficult problems while at the same time protecting the rights of the lawful gun owner. If there is any way that we can assist you, we welcome the opportunity. LETTERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD OFFICE OF CORONER, Senator THOMAS DODD, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I am writing you regarding your Federal gun control bill, presently being considered in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. In order to introduce myself, I have been coroner of St. Louis County 812 years. I am chairman of the board of directors of the National Association of Coroners, chairman of the board of directors, Missouri State Coroner's Association, and consultant to the American Association of Criminology. I have also authored 2 books on death investigation, the latest, "Outline of Death Investigation," published by Thomas Publishing Co. I should like to heartily endorse your bill for two purposes. First, approximately 75 percent of all of our homicides in St. Louis County (800,000 population) have been with firearms, many on the spur of the mo ment and in a heat of passion-deaths that otherwise would have been prevented were the firearms not available. Secondly, St. Louis County, as other parts of the country, is witnessing a tremendous increase in suicides. Our suicides for 6 months of this year are approximately 60 percent (38 as compared to 23) more than the same period in 1964. Of the 38 suicides thus far this year, 22 have been as a result of guns. Again, were these guns not available during the period of depression, these suicides might have been prevented. Also, were these guns more difficult to purchase or secure, some of these suicides would not have occurred. Many of these successful self-murders were by persons who have previously attempted or threatened to take their own lives. In addition to the stricter regulations called for in your bill, I have requested a local program, which probably will be put in effect within the next month, of central reporting of all suicide threats and attempts. This will allow police checks on same before issuing permits. This kind of program, together with your bill, will most certainly lower our suicide rates. I firmly believe that the passage of your bill, together with stringent local surveillance and regulations, will cut our murders and suicides appreciably. Very truly yours, RAYMOND I. HARRIS, Coroner, St. Louis County, Mo. HOUSTON, TEX., August 6, 1965. Senator THOMAS J. DODD, Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, DEAR SENATOR DODD: I am writing this statement, at your invitation, in lieu of appearing personally to testify against the proposed legislation H.R. 6628. I would like this to be inserted in the printed record. Briefly, this type of legislation, if enacted, would not accomplish its purpose, i.e., stopping criminals from getting guns. I am qualified to testify on this subject as former Chief of Staff in the Philippine Guerrilla Forces on the island of Leyte, where our jungle arsenal made these same guerrilla guns by the thousands between 1942 and 1944. In addition, I was the first “zip gun” manufacturer in the United States. My company. Richardson Industries, East Haven, Conn., produced and sold over 2,600 guerrilla guns in 1945-46, which sold nationally for $4.98 to $7.98. Serviceable shotguns, parts and labor, in quantities of 1,000, can be manufac tured in any plumbing shop in America for less than $3 each. For an electric type trigger, for high accuracy, the same gun could be produced in quantity for less than $8 each. Fully automatic shotguns, for less than $20 each. The reason for this low price and ready availability is the fact that the guns can be manufactured from standard 4- and 14-inch water pipe, steel rod, a welding torch and a metal disk with a nipple as a fixed firing pin. The gun is operated by bringing the barrel and shell manually back aganist the fixed firing pin. There are no moving parts. The electrical model would employ the electrical elements of a Brownie Flash Camera, available at your drug stores anywhere. Summing up, teenage gangs in any large metropolitan area have made their own "zip guns" when necessary. This is a matter of record and some concern to policemen everywhere. If H.R. 6628 were to be enacted, law enforcement is further complicated by the fact that no record of these homemade gun sales could be made, and that the component parts could be shipped anywhere without fear of detection. For those who would deny the effectiveness of this type weapon, I might add that with the refinement of steel tubing, chambering the barrel, electric firing and the addition of a 48- to 56-inch barrel, front sights and magnum load shotgun slugs, the normal "zip gun" can become as accurate and effective as most any model presently available. We did this in the Philippines during the war, by necessity, in less than 6 months. We could and would do the same thing here if the necessity arose, but it wouldn't take as long. Sincerely, Hon. THOMAS J. DODD, I. D. RICHARDSON. SHUR-X-BULLET CO., INC., Chairman, Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR DODD: The board of directors of Shur-X-Bullet Corp. have reviewed in detail S. 1592 introduced into the 89th Congress to amend the Federal Firearms Act. It is the wish of the board by unanimous vote to register in opposition to this bill as written and that this letter be entered into the record when the measure is scheduled for hearing before the Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. We feel that the provisions of this bill as they will apply to sportsmen and dealers in firearms and ammuntion are unduly restrictive and would tend to impose unnecessary hardships on our law-abiding citizens. Sincerely yours, HARVEY E. Strauss, President. BERTRAM C. VAN ARSDALE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Louisville, Ky., April 29, 1965. Hon. CHARLES P. FARNSLEY, DEAR CHARLIE: Please allow me to register my strongest personal objections to the bill introduced by Senator Thomas J. Dodd identified as S. 1592. Some years ago I strongly objected to H.R. 613, known as the Anfuso bill, and for the same reasons hereinafter stated. The most recent Dodd bill, S. 1592, which is recommended by the administration, is merely another device whereby absolute power is delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury to impose arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory regulations on all gun sales by dealers. My connections with the shooting fraternity are of long standing, and my interest in hunting, gun collecting, ammunition reloading, trap, skeet, and target shooting with rifles, pistols, and shotguns is intense. Most of the larger cities of the land require registration of pistols, and these measures have become law with the intent to make it difficult for the criminally bent to either acquire or own firearms or pistols, and with the further objective of identification of the true owner of the firearms which may be involved in criminal acts. Law-abiding citizens have for the most part complied fully with such local laws and where they have not done so the chief reason is that of ignorance of the regulation. The criminal has never registered firearms as a general rule and will not do so in the future, regardless of legal requirements at the National, State, or local level. Criminals will always be able to buy firearms or acquire them otherwise through illegitimate sources. They either remove the identifying serial numbers or deface them in such a manner and to such an extent that true identification becomes extremely difficult, even though the use of acid is commonly prac ticed by the law enforcement bodies to bring out serial numbers ground off by the thieves or acquirers of guns through illegal channel pawnshop owners, who have by law been long required to register with local police forces the identifying numbers of firearms pawned, have in many instances been lax and many cases are known where serial numbers are reported with one or two numbers deleted, or with the numbers transposed. Of course these are always claimed to be clerical errors. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States grants to its citizens the freedom to keep and bear arms. Of course this is not to state tha: such a right should not be regulated, and by Federal firearms regulatory statutes. such requirements have long been the law of the land. However, it is also plain that when too much regulation or unreasonable regulatory measures become law the major accomplishment is to make law violators of otherwise responsible and honorable people. Such measures tend to cause average citizens to have a lesser respect for Government and for law. It is quite safe to say that a great majority of the homes of this Nation contain one or more firearms; so do many business houses. A great number of these guns in the homes, and practically all in business establishments, are pistols for the protection of life and property. Many are shotguns for hunting and trapshooting purposes. The remainder are rifles of various categories for target shooting and/or hunting. Some, of course, are collectors' items acquired mainly through pride of ownership and for historical or artistic values. Millions of people, 99 percent of them law abiding, would be required to register millions of guns-and the criminal element would never comply with the law. I am a member of the National Rifle Association and the Louisville Rifle and Revolver Club. My son is a member of the Jefferson Gun Club. I was captain of, and shot on, the rifle teams of the Louisville Male High School and of my college. Most of my friends and relatives, both male and female, have a continuing interest in guns, so that this letter reflects not only my personal attitude. but the attitude of others who are frank enough to speak their minds to me upon the subject. They resent as do I the continual efforts of persons commonly alluded to as "regulators and reformers" who, not understanding the true picture of firearms and firearm owners in this country, seek continually to impose their conception of what law ought to be upon millions of other fellow citizens and without regard for the deeply held beliefs of their fellowmen. These "antigun" people apparently completely misunderstand one basic simple fact, to wit, the criminal will not now or in the foreseeable future obey the antifirearm laws or stringent regulatory laws which the antiguns sponsor. The corollary to this is that millions of honorable law-abiding citizens are caused to wade through a tremendous amount of redtape and feel that their basic rights as American citizens are impaired for no good reason. This they resent and have less respect for the laws of the land as the result thereof. I have served two terms as the county judge of the most populous county in Kentucky, and for 8 years signed the order books of the county court, the probate court, the fiscal court, the juvenile court, the quarterly court, criminal branch, the quarterly court, civil branch, and the quarterly court, traffic branch, and it is my firm conviction that any law that tends to make law violators out of otherwise law-abiding people is an eroding influence upon people as a whole. Unrealistic speed limits made law by ordinance of the smallest city are illustrative of this point. Too stringent and unrealistic State and Federal statutes, as exemplified by the Volstead Act, are further examples at higher governmental levels. The Sullivan Act in New York has utterly failed to bring about the objective originally sought by this legislation. It is earnestly submitted that good legislation is firmly based in logic, and that poor legislation is frequently founded upon emotion. No legislation will ever prevent the criminally inclined from securing and using firearms illegally but legislation can so penalize hardened criminals who do use firearms in their criminal activities that the result all law-abiding persons desire may be brought about. For the foregoing reasons, and many others which would take too long to adequately express, I urge first that public hearings be required concerning S. 1592, and hope that the bill in its present form be defeated. With every good personal wish, believe me, Sincerely yours, B. C. VAN ARSDAIF STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD STATEMENT OF DR. SPENCER M. SMITH, JR., SECRETARY, CITIZENS COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES FOR THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Dr. Spencer M. Smith, Jr., secretary of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources, a national conservation organization with offices in Washington, D.C. Our board of directors has among its membership some of the outstanding conservationists in the country and I am most pleased to be able to represent them in the matter of legislation relative to the control of firearms. It would be improper for the statement of the Citizens Committee on Natural Resources to be presented in such a fashion that the objectives and purposes of the committee could be misunderstood and/or alined with other groups that take exception to the legislation for reasons quite apart from those we espouse. We are not concerned with the public being disarmed and thus left powerless in the event of a Communist invasion. Neither are we concerned about maintaining private stocks of firearms to be used against any human being irrespective of the variety of purposes which have been suggested. Our principal and predominant concern is that those who are law-abiding citizens not be placed in the position of finding it impossible or so complicated that they will be unable to purchase firearms for legal and legitimate purposes such as hunting and sports shooting. We are not so naive as to suggest that the balancing of a variety of interests in order that the overall public interest best be served is an easy task. If there could be a complete assurance that crime would be reduced abrupty and significantly by the control of firearms then any objections that we could offer relative to any inconveniences suffered by the legitimate firearm user would perhaps be an appropriate price to pay for reduction of crimes of violence. It is not just a rationalization to suggest that crime is a highly complex function of human behavior, the basis for which is varied and numerous. The sociological problems of urbanization and the attendant economic problems of adjustment and growth are but a part of the community problem in controlling criminal acts. We are sure the committee is more aware of the details than are we in that many crimes of violence are committed without using firearms of any type, whether they be handgun. shotgun, or rifle. By the same token, the vigorous debate continues unabated over whether the courts have dealt with criminals with sufficient stringency or whether the procedure of investigation of crimes is too lenient. Thus whether the increase of police power is warranted or whether such an increase constitutes an erosion of due process of law is a problem with which society continues to grapple. It would appear to us that the many factors which impinge upon the crime of violence are sufficient to warrant the most careful consideration in the regulation and availability of firearms. We are not contending that no legislation is necessary, especially as it is applied to juveniles and known undesirables in attaining firearms. We are sympathetic to the committee's difficulties as they attempt to eradicate the misuse of firearms and at the same time not penalize unduly the legitimate use made of firearms by the many sports oriented and sports minded individuals in the country. We think one of the first steps would be to clearly distinguish between rifles, shotguns, and handguns. We feel, additionally, that this is an area wherein the administrative agencies in their zeal to carry out the intent of Congress may go well beyond the terms of the legislation. It would be our hope that whatever legislation is decided upon by the committee that the details of administering the act be made crystal clear. Perhaps the committee could go further in this instance than Congress generally wants to go in prescribing the administrative details that will implement the legislation. We know the committee has heard often enough in their consideration of the pending legislation that there are between 15 and 20 million law-abiding sportsmen in this country who use firearms for sport and recreation. We know the committee does not desire to penalize unduly the law-abiding citizens in order to obviate those who wonla misuse these firearms. |